Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: April ::
Stylometrics
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0990  Friday, 30 April 2004

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Apr 2004 19:52:47 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0977 Stylometrics

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 30 Apr 2004 11:18:52 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0977 Stylometrics


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 29 Apr 2004 19:52:47 +0100
Subject: 15.0977 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0977 Stylometrics

The Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing at the University of
Newcastle (Australia) has been doing very interesting
stylometry/attribution work for a while now.

Their excellent website allows you to play around with principal
component analysis.

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/cllc/pcaonline/index.html

(if that doesn't work, go to http://www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/cllc/
and click on 'PCA online')

Jonathan Hope
Strathclyde University, Glasgow    http://www.sinrs.stir.ac.uk/

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 30 Apr 2004 11:18:52 +0100
Subject: 15.0977 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0977 Stylometrics

I don't mean to harp on about what apparently was a throw-away comment
by Marcus Dahl, and am grateful that he's clarified it:

 >My connection with Godel was simply that
 >sometimes it is possible to show reliably that
 >we cannot in principle know / do something . . .

That's the use of Godel that I object to. Before Godel we were already
aware that there were things that could not in principle be known or
done. Godel's contribution to the sum of human knowledge was much more
glorious and specific than that.

I cease haranguing Marcus on this point.

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.